Giridhar, Karthik

LBA10509 Background: The MCED test (Galleri) detects a shared cancer signal from cell-free DNA in blood and predicts a cancer signal origin (CSO) to guide diagnostic (dx) workup. PF2 (NCT05155605) is a large, prospective, multicenter, interventional study of the MCED test’s performance and safety in a diverse US intended-use population. Methods: PF2 enrolled participants aged ≥50y without clinical suspicion of cancer or cancer diagnosis/treatment within 3y of enrollment. Primary objectives were MCED performance and safety in terms of dx testing triggered by a positive (cancer signal detected) MCED test result. Participants with a positive MCED test underwent targeted dx workup guided by the predicted CSO(s). Participant-reported anxiety was assessed with the State Trait Anxiety Inventory. Results: PF2 enrolled 35,878 participants; 32,007 with a 12m cancer assessment were analyzable for performance. Of 287 (0.9%) with a positive MCED test, 173 were diagnosed with cancer within 12m, for a cancer detection rate of 0.5% (95% CI 0.5-0.6%) and positive predictive value of 60.3% (54.5-65.8%). Specificity was 99.6% (99.6-99.7%). 12m episode sensitivity was 69.8% (62.8-76.0%) in a prespecified subgroup of 12 cancers responsible for ⅔ of US cancer deaths, 66.2% (55.1-75.8%) in a subgroup of 6 aggressive cancers with low 5y survival, and 39.3% (34.9-44.0%) across all cancers. Overall CSO prediction accuracy was 91.3% (86.2-94.7%) across all cancers. The MCED test detected 151 new primary and 22 recurrent cancers; additional cancers detected by screening were those with USPSTF A/B (n=31) and C (n=60) recommended screening. Of 151 MCED-detected new primaries, 80 (53.0%) were clinical stage I-II; 107 (70.9%) were stage I-III. Of 80 MCED-detected stage I-II cancers, 71.2% had no USPSTF A/B screening recommendation. Of 35,335 participants analyzable for safety, 213 (0.6%) had invasive procedure(s) to evaluate a positive MCED test result, of which 90% were nonsurgical and 1.8x more likely for participants with vs without cancer diagnosis. Most (87.6%) had a CSO-guided dx evaluation. There were 5 study-related adverse events during the time of dx workup; none were serious. Anxiety temporarily increased for participants with a positive MCED test and cancer diagnosed, and returned to baseline by 12m. Of participants with a positive MCED test, median time from test result to dx resolution was 48d (95% CI 43-56). Few participants (7/63 [11.1%]) had cancer found by dx PET/CT after a targeted dx workup that did not reveal cancer. Conclusion: The MCED test demonstrated robust performance with a favorable safety profile. When MCED testing was added to USPSTF A/B screening, 6.5x more cancers were detected by screening, most at early stages. The diverse, representative PF2 participant population supports the generalizability of these findings to the US intended-use population. Clinical trial information: NCT05155605 .

TPS655 Background: Early (14-28 day) on-treatment suppression of tumor proliferation during neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) is strongly associated with favorable long-term outcomes in estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) HER2– breast cancer. In premenopausal women, tamoxifen with or without ovarian function suppression (OFS) results in suboptimal Ki-67 suppression compared with aromatase inhibitor + OFS. (Z)-endoxifen (ENDX), the active metabolite of tamoxifen, dually inhibits ER signaling and PKCβ1-mediated AKT activation, supporting its evaluation as an alternative NET strategy in this population. Methods: EVANGELINE (NCT05607004) is an ongoing, multicenter, open-label Phase 2 study evaluating daily 40 mg ENDX plus goserelin administered every 28 days as neoadjuvant therapy in premenopausal women with ER+/HER2–, cT2–3, cN0–1 breast cancer. The primary objective is to determine the proportion of patients with baseline Ki-67 >10% who achieve Ki-67 ≤10% after 4 weeks of therapy. A Simon two-stage design is used to test whether the Week 4 Ki-67 ≤10% rate is at least 65%, with 20 patients enrolled into the first stage and, if promising, another 25 patients enrolled into the second stage (cohort A). A parallel cohort of 20 patients with baseline Ki-67 ≤10% (cohort B) is enrolled to assess objective response rate (ORR) at 24 weeks per RECIST v1.1. Secondary objectives include examining safety and tolerability, residual cancer burden, and PEPI score. Correlative analyses include examining effect of treatment on select tumor and plasma biomarkers. Clinical trial information: NCT05607004 .

TPS649 Background: While advancements in early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) treatment have improved survival, disease recurrence and therapeutic resistance remain significant challenges. Current biomarkers guide initial treatment, yet novel diagnostics are required to improve risk stratification and recurrence prediction. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) offers a non-invasive method for detecting minimal residual disease (MRD), potentially enabling the identification of molecular relapse before radiographic progression. However, deeper validation of ctDNA kinetics across the treatment continuum is needed to inform precision oncology strategies in ESBC. Additionally, the logistical complexity of tissue-dependent assays presents a barrier to scalability. In order to address these gaps, the purpose of the GEMINI-BREAST study is to evaluate a methylation-based, tissue-free ctDNA assay (Tempus xM) and integrate this with comprehensive clinical and multi-omic data to determine prognostic utility for invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) and long term outcomes in patients with ESBC. Methods: GEMINI-BREAST (NCT07211178) is a prospective, non-interventional, multi-center study enrolling up to 900 participants with ESBC treated with curative intent. Eligible patients enroll into one of three analytical cohorts (n ~ 300 each): Cohort 1 enrolls pre-neoadjuvant therapy (high-risk HR+/HER2- [Stage II-III], HER2+ [Stage II-III], or TNBC [Stage I-III]); Cohort 2 enrolls post-surgery/pre-adjuvant therapy (same subtypes, no evidence of disease); and Cohort 3 enrolls long-term survivors (high-risk HR+/HER2- [Stage II-III], ≥ 5 years since diagnosis). Longitudinal blood samples for ctDNA analysis and archival tissue for NGS are collected at standard-of-care intervals, including, as applicable: pre-neoadjuvant, neoadjuvant on-treatment (weeks 3, 6, 12) and post-treatment, post-surgical/pre-adjuvant, adjuvant on-treatment (every 3 months), end of definitive therapy, surveillance for up to 5 years (every 3-6 months for Cohorts 1/2; every 6-12 months for Cohort 3), and at progression/recurrence. The primary objective is to evaluate the association between ctDNA dynamics (Cohort 1) or MRD status (Cohort 2/3) and iDFS, with secondary endpoints assessing overall survival, lead time to recurrence, and the predictive value of ctDNA clearance for pathological complete response. Recruitment is currently ongoing at U.S. sites. Clinical trial information: NCT07211178 .

e13660 Background: We previously showed success with collection of structured data elements within the electronic health record using the minimum common oncology data elements (henceforth, mCODE tool) supported by soft-stop close visit validation (CVV) and staff support interventions in a limited cohort. Since the additional interventions are resource-intensive and difficult to apply across an entire department, we therefore implemented a department-wide roll-out supported by the least resource-intensive interventions while monitoring uptake. Methods: The mCODE tool collects five data elements: stage, disease status, performance status, intent of treatment, and intent to change therapy. The Department of Oncology providers received education on the mCODE tool and were asked to implement use at a faculty meeting; soft-stop CVV was enabled at that time. The percentage of data captured for each data element was collected from the notes of providers who did not participate in prior pilots for the 4 months post-implementation. mCODE tool usage was defined as entry of at least one data element except stage (as stage has long been a structured data element in Epic, can be entered independently of the mCODE tool, and many providers were entering stage prior to mCODE tool introduction). Results: 86 MDs and 20 APPs for a total of 106 providers were included, resulting in 14,973 visits and 8,745 unique patients. 73.6% of providers (n =78) utilized the mCODE tool. Of those who utilized the tool, median overall data capture across the four data elements was 24.0%. 22.6% of providers (n =24) achieved > 80% overall data capture and 32.1% (n =34) had over 50% overall data capture despite minimal intervention. 75.6% of MDs (n = 65) utilized the tool with a median data capture of 16.3% compared to 65% of APPs (n = 13) with a median data capture of 90.3%. Rates of data capture for individual data elements were similar. Conclusions: Use of soft-stop CVV appears to drive utilization of the mCODE tool but is insufficient to promote > 80% data capture for most providers without more intervention. Supportive interventions such as individualized assistance with incorporation into existing templates and directed communication from leadership remain necessary to promote use of structured data elements and will be implemented in sequence to understand how we achieve the target data capture ( > 80%) at scale.

545 Background: ILC is characterized by loss of E-cadherin expression, with distinct biological and clinical features, and is often perceived to be less sensitive to chemotherapy compared with IDC. Oncologists and pts may face a treatment dilemma regarding the benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy in pts with lower biologic risk but higher anatomic risk (N2/N3), stage III ILC. In this study, we sought to compare the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in pN2/N3 ILC compared with IDC. Methods: We used the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to identify adults with primary, non-metastatic, ER-positive/HER2-negative invasive breast cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2022 who underwent upfront surgery. Patients receiving neoadjuvant systemic therapy were excluded. Analyses were limited to pathologic stage I–III disease with known nodal involvement (N2–N3) and tumor category (T1–4). Propensity score matching (1:3, caliper 0.2; using R 4.5.1) was performed to balance age, sex, race, insurance status, grade, pathologic stage, nodal category, tumor category, Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score, and year of diagnosis. Overall survival (OS) was assessed using Kaplan–Meier methods and Cox proportional hazards models used to estimate hazard ratios (SPSS v28). Results: After propensity matching, we analyzed 28,115 pts with pN2/N3 disease (ILC 9,603 and IDC 18,512). Upstaging from cN0 to pN2/3 was higher for ILC than IDC (20.3% vs 13.3%, p<0.001). ILC pts were more likely to undergo mastectomy compared to IDC (80.2% vs 71.2%, p<0.001). Receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy for pN2/N3 disease was similar between IDC and ILC (78.0% vs 78.4%, p=0.37), as was use of adjuvant radiation and endocrine therapy. Among patients receiving chemotherapy, treatment was associated with a 65% reduction in death in ILC (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.32–0.38, p<0.001) and a 73% reduction in IDC (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.26–0.29, p<0.001), compared with no chemotherapy. 5-year OS among chemotherapy-treated patients was lower for ILC compared with IDC (HR 1.4, 95% CI 1.33-1.49; p<0.001, Table 1). In contrast, no OS difference was observed between ILC and IDC among patients who did not receive chemotherapy (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96-1.11; p=0.38). Chemotherapy was associated with higher 5-year OS in both IDC (87.7% vs 58.9%) and ILC (84.3% vs 59.2%). Conclusions: Adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with a substantial improvement in 5-year OS among patients with pN2/N3 disease in both IDC and ILC. Pts with ILC and extensive nodal involvement benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. 5-year survival of IDC and ILC. IDC (18,512) ILC (9,603) No Chemotherapy (4,078) Adjuvant Chemotherapy (14,434) No Chemotherapy (2,071) Adjuvant Chemotherapy (7,532) pN2 (18,669) 62.8% 90.1% 64.4% 87.6% pN3 (9,446) 48.3% 82.2% 51.4% 79.4% pN2/pN3 Combined (28,115) 58.9% 87.7% 59.2% 84.3% P <0.001, log rank.

10578 Background: Multicancer detection (MCD) testing using cell-free DNA methylation patterns is a novel blood-based approach to cancer screening. In 2022, Mayo Clinic implemented offering MCD testing into routine clinical practice. Prior real-world reports have been limited to single-site experiences. We evaluated enterprise-wide implementation of MCD testing across all three Mayo Clinic sites using the Mayo Clinic Platform. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of de-identified clinical data from Mayo Clinic Platform Discover, including GRAIL Galleri tests performed at Mayo Clinic sites in Rochester, MN; Scottsdale, AZ; and Jacksonville, FL. This activity did not require IRB review per 45 CFR 46.102. Demographics, test results, cancer diagnoses, and prior cancer history were extracted using a privacy-preserving protocol, with data de-identified by expert determination. ICD-10 diagnostic codes were used to identify subsequent cancer diagnoses. Results: A total of 8,201 Galleri tests were performed in 7,300 patients; some patients underwent repeat testing. Fifty-seven tests (0.7%) were positive. Among MCD-positive patients, cancer diagnostic codes were identified in 32 patients, yielding a positive predictive value (PPV) of 58.7%. The most common cancers identified were oropharyngeal (34.4%), lymphoid and hematopoietic (34.4%), and gastrointestinal malignancies (18.8%).Among 8,144 MCD-negative tests (99.3% of all testing performed), 423 patients (5.2%) subsequently received a cancer diagnostic code, yielding a negative predictive value of 92.5%. The most commonly identified cancers in this group were male genital organs (36.6%), urinary tract (10.6%), and thyroid or other endocrine glands (7.3%). Overall, 10.1% of patients had a prior cancer history, which was more common in MCD-positive than MCD-negative patients (22.6% vs 10.0%). Patients with positive tests were older (mean age 68.4 vs 61.5 years) and more often male (67% vs 62%). Race distribution was similar. Conclusions: Enterprise-wide implementation of MCD testing across diverse clinical settings is feasible within routine workflows. Over half of positive tests were associated with cancer diagnostic codes, supporting the clinical promise of MCD testing. Limitations include incomplete capture of externally diagnosed cancers and lack of cancer signal-of-origin data. The Mayo Clinic Platform enables scalable, secure analytics to support future cancer interception strategies.

1056 Background: Resistance to HER2-directed therapies remains a major challenge in HER2-positiveMBC. In preclinical models, HER2+ tumors overexpress poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP), and PARP inhibition induces apoptosis through NF-κB suppression even in the absence of pathogenic mutations in BRCA 1/2 . We evaluated the safety, efficacy, and translational correlates of niraparib combined with trastuzumab in patients (pts) with refractory HER2+ MBC. Methods: This open-label Phase 1b/2 trial (NCT03368729) enrolled pts with HER2+ MBC (IHC 3+ and/or FISH amplified), measurable disease, LVEF ≥50%, and progression on ≥1 prior HER2-targeted therapy; stable CNS disease was allowed. Pts with germline BRCA1/2 mutations or prior PARP inhibitor exposure were excluded. Niraparib 300 mg orally was administered on Days 1–21 of a 21-day cycle with trastuzumab 6 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks (loading dose 8 mg/kg on cycle 1). The Phase 2 portion used a Gehan/Simon two-stage design with early stopping for futility (P0=24%); ≥1 response among the first 20 patients triggered expansion to 40 patients. ORR was assessed by RECIST v1.1, meeting the primary endpoint and allowing response rate estimation with <7% standard error and a two-sided 95% exact CI width of 0.28. Gene expression profiling of paired tumor tissue and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) was performed using the NanoString nCounter Tumor Signaling 360 panel at pretreatment compared to cycle 2. Results: Forty-six pts were enrolled (9/2019–2/2025); 41 were evaluable for response. Pts were heavily pretreated (median 3 prior regimens), including trastuzumab deruxtecan in 22 pts; 33% had brain metastases. Treatment-related adverse events were predominantly grade 1–2 and manageable. Clinical benefit rate (CBR) was 44% (18/41) including 1 complete response, 2 partial responses, and 15 stable disease. Eleven patients achieved disease control ≥ 6 months; 1 patient remained on treatment at data cutoff. Tumor profiling revealed enrichment of a B-cell–driven tertiary lymphoid structure signature with reduced hypoxia signaling in responders. Matched PBMC analyses demonstrated coordinated downregulation of interferon signaling, DNA damage response, metabolic activation, angiogenesis, and resistance pathways in clinical responders, whereas non-responders retained signatures of chronic stress and immune exhaustion. Conclusions: Niraparib plus trastuzumab demonstrated a favorable safety profile and durable clinical benefit in heavily pretreated HER2+ MBC. Integrated tumor and blood-based analyses identify immune-organized tumor microenvironments and systemic immune normalization as key correlates of prolonged response, supporting further investigation of PARP inhibition strategies. Clinical trial information: NCT03368729 .

Elevated intratumoral interstitial fluid pressure (IFP) can negatively impact the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) of breast cancer. This study aims to predict breast cancer pathological complete response (pCR) to NAC based on IFP measures by 3-D subharmonic-aided pressure estimation (SHAPE). SHAPE uses the inverse linear relationship between hydrostatic pressure and subharmonic signal magnitude from intravascular ultrasound contrast agents. Thirty-eight breast cancer patients undergoing NAC from three clinical sites were enrolled for this study. SHAPE data were collected for each subject at 0%, 10%, and 30% of NAC completion using a Logiq E9 system (GE HeathCare) equipped with an RSP6-16D probe. The contrast agent used was Definity (Lantheus Medical Imaging). The subharmonic signal gradients between tumor and adjacent normal tissue were calculated and compared with patient pathological response outcome using t-test and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Pressure gradients between pCR (15 patients) and non-pCR (23 patients) groups were significantly different at 0 (p = 0.02), 10 (p = 0.03), and 30% (p = 0.0003) completion of NAC. Area under the curve values of 0.69, 0.77, and 0.86 were achieved at 0%, 10%, and 30% of NAC completion, respectively. Overall, SHAPE pressure gradients may aid prediction of NAC pathological response in breast cancer patients.

Abstract Purpose A protocol was developed to evaluate the value of an NK-1 receptor antagonist for preventing nausea and vomiting resulting from highly emetogenic chemotherapy when an olanzapine-based antiemetogenic regimen was used. Materials and Methods A221602, a prospective double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, was developed to compare 2 ­olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimens, one with an NK-1 receptor antagonist (aprepitant or fosaprepitant) and one without. Trial patients had a malignant disease for which they received intravenous highly emetogenic chemotherapy (single day cisplatin ≥ 70 mg/m2 or doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide on 1 day). Patients on both arms received commonly administered doses of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and olanzapine. Additionally, patients were randomized to receive an NK-1 receptor antagonist (fosaprepitant 150 mg IV or aprepitant 130 mg IV) or a corresponding placebo. The primary objective was to compare the proportion of patients with no nausea for 5 days following chemotherapy between the 2 study arms. This trial was designed to test for the noninferiority of deleting the NK-1 receptor antagonist, with noninferiority defined as a decrease in freedom from nausea by less than 10%. Results A total of 690 patients were entered on this trial, 50% on each arm. The proportion of patients without nausea for the complete 5-day study period was 7.4% lower (upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval was 13.5%) in the arm without an NK-1 receptor antagonist compared with the arm with an NK-1 receptor antagonist. Conclusion This trial did not provide sufficient evidence to support that deletion of the NK-1 receptor antagonist was as good as keeping it, as a part of a 4-drug antiemetic regimen for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03578081).